Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well it has been almost nine months since the Supreme Court made gay marriages legal, ending the biggest abuse of civil liberties based on sex(quality). I feel it is time to ask those who were against it if there marriages are actually illegitimate now. I can understand you feel it is, but is there a feeling of it but is ask is it truly illegitimate now that gays can marry too.
Nine months?...after thousands of years, marriage gets a major version upgrade and you are running your QA after nine months? ... ... I suppose it might have been some peoples argument that gay marriage invalidates straight marriage, but that was never my argument. You are going to need a LOT longer than nine months to rub straight gay marriage detractors noses in the outcomes. Check back in a few hundred years, we'll talk then.
Given that marriage is an artificial, human-created institution (non-humans do not take part in "institutions", and freely mate and procreate as they please), I don't see why other humans taking part in the same "institution" matters one way or another. It's all a farce, anyway (and I've been married for 42 years). The divorce rate is a testament to just how farcical it is.
As for marrying one's dog or cat, the animal kingdom is incapable of giving full legal consent. If they knew enough to actually do so, they'd run like hell rather than get married. It's easier to form a fighting pack around a bytch in heat out in the street, and perform shamelessly for human amusement!
That latter is a heckuva lot cheaper than the average human wedding, nowadays!
My daughter and her wife married August 2013 in NY. My husband and I are still married after 41 years, as my daughter and DIL still are too. Life goes on as the majority of the country said it would.
Exactly. My wife and I got married June 14, 2015 in NC where it was legal (we live in TX) 9 days before the SCOTUS decision was handed down. After it became legal everywhere, the sky didn't fall, and the world didn't end. Shocking
You hit the nail on the head. Anti-gay marriage supporters have said that gay marriage would some how devalue their's though by law it hasn't and religiously on religious marriages count.
I hit nothing on the head. I just simply don't care enough if two gays get married. My marriage is between me and another woman, not me and the rest of the world. I don't think it devalues my marriage therefore it doesn't. A marriage is a contract that gives two people certain rights to and over one another. I love my wife ad would be with her with or without that piece of paper.
But other people that are more religious than I am feel it devalues their marriage. Weather it's religion or upbringing or both they feel that the gay lifestyle and gay marriage are abnormal. Well that's how they feel.
What's funny to me is some people tend to like or want to control or suppress others in that same society of they don't conform or believe as they do. It's been that way since civilization started.
There are people who believe the world only started 5,000 years ago. And there are people who believe we were brought here by spaceships.
I do not know why people bother with government sanctioned marriage, or why the government got in the marriage business anyway.
Marriage is a religious construct. I know most do the whole marriage license thing for tax purposes, but there are other ways. Even better ways to set up taxes and inheritance.
The Feds should have stayed out of marriage from the beginning, and then it would not be an issue for debate. Each could have their own form of marriage and no one else would have any say in it.
I have my own view of it, but it hasnt changed my marriage, other than a couple of arguments with my wife about it. We stil get inthe same bed at night, have the same checking accounts, and do just as much with each other as we did when the law was passed......
I do not know why people bother with government sanctioned marriage, or why the government got in the marriage business anyway.
Governments got involved with marriage in ancient times because the marriages of the wealthy and powerful had economic and political ramifications. Dissolutions of a marriage between powerful families could result in serious economic and perhaps even physical conflict leading to political instability. That's why divorces were extremely difficult to get in the Roman Empire, and those in Rome itself needed the emperor's permission to divorce.
Marriages of low-level civilians...not so much government interest, although the law necessary for the mighty could be applied to the lowly.
Quote:
Marriage is a religious construct.
Not purely. It's a social construct, and some concept of "marriage" is present in every human society, but "there are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays, and every single one of them is right."
I do agree that in this particular society, there should be a distinction between domestic relations that the larger society needs to exert some control over for purposes of wealth division (which was what the ancient Romans were concerned about) and domestic relations that may be significant in personal social contacts but otherwise not significant to the larger society.
I think the former can be handled through domestic partnership contracts (which of course would need further development from their current state), and the latter can be taken care of by religious clergy. IOW, if any couple (or group) wants the courts to enforce their economic relationship, they would need to draw up a contract. If they want their social circle to recognize their social relationship, they need to find clergy willing to recognize it.
I think that birth control has made our 1950's-era public policy around marriage obsolete. Pre-birth control, you got married, you had children, we had public policy that took that into account. "Married filing jointly" tax status assumed you had the Leave It To Beaver family with dad going off to work and a stay at home wife. Social Security survivor's benefits were designed for that 1950's reality. I think that those kinds of taxpayer-funded benefits should only apply to couples with children. I'd be fine with making them gender-blind. I don't care if it's 2 guys raising kids or two women, society should do anything possible to encourage dual parent households because they work better than single parent households. I'd much rather have public policy that decoupled financial benefits that should be applied to couples raising children from "Marriage".
With that view, I have always mildly opposed gay marriage on fiscal grounds. I don't want my tax dollars funding something so a gay couple can "feel good about themselves". This isn't Islamic Fundamentalist or born again Christian foaming at the mouth opposition. The Supreme Court ruled. I'm fine with it.
I am not sure I understand your point. So you think marriage should only exist for child-rearing purposes? You know a lot of gay/lesbian couples have kids, right? And what about straight couples who do not have kids?
And I don't think you really get tax breaks for being married if you don't have kids, anyway.
Are you saying you should not receive survivor's benefits for your spouse unless you have kids?
I do not know why people bother with government sanctioned marriage, or why the government got in the marriage business anyway.
I've noticed that the complaining about 'government being in the marriage business' begins and ends when the subject is same-sex marriage. Absent that, no one ever complains about it - which demonstrates that such complaints aren't really about civil marriage but about the fact that it is extended to same-sex couples.
Quote:
Marriage is a religious construct. I know most do the whole marriage license thing for tax purposes, but there are other ways. Even better ways to set up taxes and inheritance.
Marriage is most certainly not exclusively a religious construct. Sorry, just because something is a religious practice, it does not following that any performance of that act is religious. Just because the ritual use of wine occurs in various religious contexts (one example: communion), it does not follow that the glass of cabernet sauvignon that I had last Friday night was a religious act.
I was married in 1995. There was nothing - nothing - religious about it. No religious figure presided. There was no referencing, direct or indirect, of any deity or religion. My marriage certificate contains nothing of a religious nature. It was and is entirely a civil contract. The fact that you don't like this is irrelevant to its reality.
Quote:
The Feds should have stayed out of marriage from the beginning, and then it would not be an issue for debate. Each could have their own form of marriage and no one else would have any say in it.
The federal government is not in the marriage business - states are. The federal government, however, is in the Equal Protection Clause business, as it should be. I know the very notion of equal protection upsets some people, but that's their problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
